New book: Did Jesus Exist? The answer: Yes he did

Bart Ehrmann is a very well-known New Testament scholar, and an atheist. But even though many atheists deny that Jesus is a historical figure, Ehrman is not one of them. He recently wrote a book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, that will be released tomorrow (March 20, 2012). Ehrman answers the question in his book affirmatively: yes, Jesus did exist. He may not have been the person as depicted in the gospels, but there is hardly any doubt that he was a historical figure. Although I doubt whether Ehrman’s ideas will pose a challenge to Christian theology (the quest for the historical Jesus is hardly an issue in theology anymore), I am interested in the way he makes his case.

See the trailer for his upcoming book here:

For Europeans: get your copy (no shipping costs) HERE.

9 thoughts on “New book: Did Jesus Exist? The answer: Yes he did

  1. It promise to be a really bad book.

    Ehrman simply can’t address why Paul can write about the Romans as God’s agents, sent to punish wrongdoers and who hold no terror for the innocent.

    After they killed the Son of God.

    Nor can Ehrman address why Paul claimed Jews had never heard of Jesus until Christians were sent to preach about him.

    Astonishingly, on page 1 of the Introduction, Ehrman alludes to the astonishing beliefs of early Christians, alluding to 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Philippians 2, while later Bart claims such thoughts never developed until 50 or more years after Jesus’s death.

    Bart can also write as though it was obvious that Cephas and Peter were the same person, when he himself wrote peer-reviewed articles questioning this identification.

    Bart, of course, simply hides the existence of his own scholarship from his readers, leaving them to think there is no doubt about such identification.

  2. It is best to wait for the full copy. In the meantime , you can always read Bart’s article explaining why Cephas and Peter may not be the same person.

  3. Steven: Ehrman does not hide his former view about Cephas and Peter. He mentions it in a footnote in this book and says he was convinced by his critics that he was wrong.

  4. That was good of Bart to do that. I must apologise.

    Still, the fact remains that this identification is questionable. He himself questioned it. I happen to think his critics were wrong, and his original objections had weight, even if the case is not entirely certain.

Comments are closed.